Posts

Fatal Army Rollover: Was the Vehicle Defective?

,

In this session, I raised several concerns regarding the heavy vehicle involved in the 2021 rollover near Townsville, which killed Warrant Officer Class Two Ryan Leslie and Craftsman Brendon Payne.

I asked whether the 45M five-axle heavy recovery vehicle had entered service overweight, causing the axles to sit on the bump stops, thereby restricting axle movement and reducing roadholding. I also noted that the tyres were overloaded, requiring approval to operate at higher loads and pressures.

Furthermore, I stated that there was no evidence the antilock braking and stability systems had been calibrated for the addition of the fifth axle, the higher tyre pressures, or unique Australian road conditions. Finally, I pointed out that the operator manual, which was compiled for more nimble vehicles, contained errors and contradictions regarding safe operating speeds and tyre pressures, and entirely omitted recommendations for Australian unsealed corrugated roads.

Defence officials (including Ms. Quinn and Ms. Kuczma) noted that standard contracts include “fitness-for-purpose” and risk-mitigation clauses. While Defence can theoretically choose to accept deviations in specifications under tight timelines, the DDA will maintain independent authority and accountability to manage contracts, enforce compliance, and withhold payments or suspend programs if requirements or safety standards are not met.

In response to my concern that the fatal vehicle’s flaws have still not been remedied, Defence Secretary Ms. Quinn rejected that the department is not focused on safety. She emphasised that Defence takes loss of life very seriously and continually adapts maintenance, acquisition, and operational processes based on new information.

I’ll be watching for the release of the report from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, officers, for appearing again tonight. My question is to the Chief of the Defence Force. On 30 August 2021, a 45M vehicle occupied by Warrant Officer Class Two Ryan Leslie and Craftsman Brendon Payne failed to take a bend on Dotswood Road near Townsville, rolled and killed both occupants. ‘On 29 August 2025, an investigation was opened into the contributing factors in the rollover’—this is a quote—’that caused the deaths of Warrant Officer Class Two Ryan Allan Leslie and Craftsman Brendon Anthony Payne and was due to report by 4 March 2026.’ Has that investigation been completed?  

Adm. Johnston: I’ve just been joined by the Chief of Army, who may assist me with those answers. 

Lt Gen. Stuart: I can confirm that the Defence investigation has been completed and the final report was submitted to Comcare. That investigation was led by the land accident investigation team. That matter is now with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The details of the report—including the findings, recommendations and conclusions—are not available to me during the period of litigation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, did you say ‘not available’?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: They’ve been referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The details of the report—including the findings, recommendations and conclusions—are not available for dissemination during the litigation that is currently ongoing.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are the outcomes of the investigation that you can share with us?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’m not in a position to share those outcomes with you while they’re subject to litigation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you confirm my understanding of these vehicles? The 45M five-axle heavy recovery vehicle entered service overweight, resulting in the axles sitting on the bump stops. This restricted axle movement and reduced roadholding. Is that correct?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’ll have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: The tyres were overloaded, requiring approval to run at higher loads and pressures. Is that correct?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: There was no evidence of the calibration of the antilock braking stability systems for the addition of the fifth axle, higher tire pressures and unique Australian road conditions. The operator manual had been compiled for more nimble vehicles, contained errors and contradictions for safe operating speeds and tyre pressures, and did not include recommendations for Australian unsealed corrugated roads. Could you take that on notice, please.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: You’re effectively making a series of assertions that may or may not be included as part of the investigation that was undertaken and is currently with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I’ve been advised—some of the design failures or flaws in the vehicle.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Is that a question or a statement?  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you confirm that?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: As I’ve just advised, the investigation is referred to and currently with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.  

Senator ROBERTS: What administrative changes have been made to improve safety and compliance of procured capability?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I can speak to a whole range of work that we’ve done. We have what you might describe as a generative safety culture, which is modelled on the way that airworthiness and air safety are managed. That is a proactive culture of reporting and continual improvement. In terms of the detail as to some of the things that we have done, I’ll provide some of the outcomes and then I might throw to my colleague Major General Vagg to provide some more. First, the application of data and analytics—that is, to have systems on the vehicle that are able to provide us with both retrospective and predictive analysis as to driving habits, and, therefore, help us understand the risks. Second, we’ve undertaken a review of the training that we provide for soldiers and other members of the ADF to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that we apply what we have learned from vehicle incidents and accidents. As you might appreciate, we have some soldiers who join the army who may not have even a civilian drivers licence. The kinds of conditions that we need to operate vehicles in, include not only the operation of the vehicle but also its tactical employment, whether that’s by day or night, on formed roads or cross country, in any kind of season, weather or terrain. We’re continually looking to update the way in which we train people to ensure that they can operate safely. In the introduction to service, and even before that, is the selection, testing and validation of any major system vehicle or weapon to ensure that it can be operated safely and that we have properly characterised the risks that may accrue to our people, and that we have either procedural, technical or equipment based mitigations or ways of reducing the risk to our people.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you heard of a man called W. Edwards Deming?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I have.  

Senator ROBERTS: You would know, then, that he led the turnaround of the Japanese producing crap to producing the best products in the world.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’m generally aware of what Mr Deming did.  

Senator ROBERTS: He said that as much as people in management like to blame or inherently try to blame people for their problems, 95 per cent of the problem is the system, which only the manager can fix. What administrative changes have been made to improve safety and compliance of procured capability?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: I have a couple of points before I’ll hand over to my colleague. Firstly, I’m accountable for everything that happens in the Army and the safety and wellbeing of all our people. Secondly, we operate a whole range of different systems, and in every case we seek to ensure that our people are systemically supported. We have a multifaceted approach to ensuring that equipment is safe, whether it’s technical assessments, predictive analysis, the way in which we train our people, or the assurance of the safety, the maintenance and the supply chain systems. It’s a holistic approach to assuring capability, assuring that those capabilities are fit for purpose, assuring that they are safe for our people to use, and assuring that our people are trained, educated and experienced to ensure that risks are managed so far as is reasonably practical.  

Major Gen. Vagg: I’ll reinforce what the Chief said. He is the land worthiness authority. Land worthiness is a system of checks that looks at current, in-service capabilities and also future-looking capabilities that we’re going to introduce into service. We’ve been developing that system over several years now. It had an interim operating capability in March 2020, and we’re on track to achieve a final operating capability in December of this year. That process is backed by a series of assessment tools, such as data trend analysis, that identify high-risk capabilities but also new capabilities, and we form an independent board which interviews users—from soldiers to managers, the procurement agency and other assurance agencies—and validates that the capability is fit to do what we’ve acquired it to do and that it’s fit and safe to operate, as the chief discussed. That board is made up of a series of retired one-star and two-star officers from across the services who have no direct linkage to the capabilities. They have no independent equities or personal equities to that capability. They’ll provide independent advice to the landworthiness authority and a series of recommendations. Those recommendations are then heard through the army operating system and implemented through our capability development and capability management processes.  

Senator ROBERTS: My next question is for the deputy secretary of the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group, Chris Deeble, or Nadine Williams or both.  

Ms Quinn: There are two different activities. There’s the capability acquisition group, for which we have a witness, and then there is the whole-of-government review of the defence delivery mechanism. So, depending on where your questions go, we may have different witnesses.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. There’s been much discussion and evidence provided to me and the parliament of the knowing approval of defective capability leading to injuries and fatalities. What does the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group do?  

Ms Kuczma: I think the question is quite broad. Our job is to acquire capability that is fit for its intended purpose and deliver that to the service that requires it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s pretty succinct.  

Adm. Johnston: Senator Roberts—sorry to interrupt. I know and recognise your advocacy for the safety of our people. If you do have evidence that suggests that we have not treated safety in the introduction of equipment into service, I would welcome that being provided through our minister so that we can both review that material and come back to you with insights that answer those areas of concern that you have identified.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What actions have been taken in the design of the Defence Delivery Agency to ensure that non-compliant capability is not accepted for service?  

Ms Quinn: I’m happy to give a high-level answer. There has been an ongoing review of the acquisition system within the Department of Defence that goes across all phases of the acquisition program, from defining capability to acquiring and sustaining it, and the feedback loops throughout that whole system. In that process, there’s been an identification of some improvements we can make—some structural, some behavioural and some about being clearer on our accountabilities. So they do fall into different categories. One is just being very clear about the accountability for the different elements of those phases of any capability acquisition, development and sustainment. The second is to improve the professionalism of the staff at all three stages of that process. That includes having a specialised workforce, particularly through the Defence Delivery Agency—I keep using the acronym DDA. That’s about professionalising the workforce, working with other elements of the Defence establishment, including industry in particular, to be able to ensure that we can improve the acquisition. Safety, of course, is one of the elements of the process. I’ll pass to Nadine Williams if she’s got anything to add.  

Ms Williams: I wouldn’t add much to that. As the secretary has said, the design of the Defence Delivery Agency has considered the matters that she’s raised. We’re going through quite an extensive process of looking at how the Defence Delivery Agency is constructed, how professionalism might be better articulated through that construct and how accountabilities will ensure that there are really clear responsibilities for all elements of acquisition as it’s currently articulated.  

Ms Quinn: The concept of contestability in decision-making has been a theme as well. One reason to be very clear about the stages of the process is to ensure there’s very good contestability at the different stages, so that it’s a multidisciplinary view of capability development, acquisition and sustainment. Having more voices, but with clear accountability, will improve the delivery system overall.  

Senator ROBERTS: The current contracts for defence procurement include clauses that say that Defence does not pay any additional cost for a non-compliant capability in the supplier’s product.  

Ms Quinn: I think it would be hard to generalise across all the different types of contracts that we have, because there are a great deal of different contracts. We look at value for money, operational capability and risk sharing. Value for money also includes ensuring that, if faulty products are provided, there’s recourse for such an outcome. So our contract management would include risk mitigation activities. I’ll just see whether Ms Kuczma wants to say—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. By ‘risk mitigation’, you mean you’ll accept the vehicle or the piece of hardware and make a risk assessment as to how to use it without fixing it?  

Ms Quinn: We certainly do that, but also, if we’d specified a certain capability—and the contract was clear on that—and we received a capability that did not meet the specifications, then there would be avenues in the contract to rectify such a situation.  

Ms Kuczma: In general terms, we have a contracting suite that includes fitness-for-purpose clauses, which look at the outcome that’s required under the contracts. Generally they exist in our contracting templates to ensure that we can have recourse should those deliveries not meet our expectations.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can they be bypassed if there’s a rush?  

Ms Kuczma: We have the ability to accept supplies and work through deviations, or things that don’t meet the requirements, should we choose. But our purpose is: fitness for purpose, receive what’s required contractually and deliver.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the Defence Delivery Agency have the authority to stop delivery, suspend programs and withhold payment where capability does not meet contract regulation or legislation?  

Ms Quinn: It is the intention that the delivery agency will have independent accountability and authority for contracts and manage those contracts in the interests of Defence, in terms of delivering the capability we need.  

Senator ROBERTS: You just talked in terms of future tense.  

Ms Quinn: Existing contracts will be novated to the delivery agency, as appropriate, so existing contracts will also have that ability—as is the case now in the Department of Defence. There will be no step back from the ability to manage delivery or to meet specifications, including safety concerns.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand from Lieutenant General Stuart that there’s no comment yet on the reports of the fatal accident, but it would seem to be—I may be wrong here—another example of failure in the military procurement process, as it appears that recent inspections of the vehicles show that the problems have still not been remedied, placing drivers and passengers of these vehicles at risk of death. Why?  

Ms Quinn: To the first part of that question, what I heard in evidence was that the investigation has been provided to the public prosecution. It’s not available to the public, but there’s certainly a process going through to look at the investigation and see whether there are next steps that need to be taken. We also heard about the implementation of a lessons- time. So the characterisation that the department isn’t focused on it, or the Army is not focused on it, I wouldn’t accept. In high-risk situations, with the activity that’s undertaken across the Defence enterprise, there is the possibility for loss of life. The department and the services take that very seriously and focus on ensuring that, if something does happen, lessons are learnt, processes are put in place and improvements are made, and that includes into the development of capability, in terms of the acquisition and sustainment of capability—because some things are to do with maintenance—and the rectification of problems. As a layperson prior to joining this department—there have been instances of things retired for a whole set of reasons. The system does respond to new information to ensure the safety of serving men and women.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

An ‘Operational Decision’ or a Media Stunt?

,

During Estimates in May, I questioned the AFP on their treatment of Ben Roberts-Smith.

While we welcome the investigation into media leaks, the AFP still refuses to explain the so-called ‘operational decision’ to arrest him on a Sydney tarmac in front of his two daughters, rather than in Brisbane.

After more than a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars spent investigating alleged war crimes, the AFP has not secured a single conviction. It’s hard to reconcile that extraordinary expenditure with an outcome that has delivered nothing but reputational damage and prolonged uncertainty for one of the nation’s most decorated soldiers.

The handling of this case raises serious questions about priorities, accountability, and whether such extraordinary resources have been justified by results.

This government needs to ask itself why it sends Australians to war if it then spends hundreds of millions tearing them down when they come home.

Transcript

CHAIR: I understand Senator Roberts has got a couple of follow-up questions from the statement. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your statement. It’s very clear and comprehensive. I’m very pleased to see that you’re going to investigate the source of the leak to the media, because it’s not fair that one of our most decorated warriors is being subjected to a trial by media. We can’t hold you responsible for that, so we’d like to see the results of the investigation. Thank you. Did you have a conversation or exchange emails with anyone—well, before I get onto that, midway through the second page, you say: The reason to arrest the individual in Sydney and not Brisbane was an operational decision … What do you mean by ‘operational decision’?  

Ms Barrett: It was based on operational factors. I said it was ‘an operational decision that was determined after discussing with relevant partners’.  

Senator ROBERTS: So an operational decision in terms of getting the assets in the right place to do the arrest?  

Ms Barrett: I’ll pass to Deputy Commissioner McCartney.  

Mr McCartney  : If you go to the front of the commissioner’s statement, she makes it fairly clear that we need to be careful with our language. This matter is before court, and we’re at risk, if we talk more about these issues—  

Senator ROBERTS: I respect that, yes.  

Mr McCartney : If we talk more about these issues and information is ventilated through this committee, we run the risk of potential impact on a fair trial. There were a range of operational matters, like the commissioner’s discussed, but, taking into account that balance and trying to be helpful to the committee, we’re going to err on the side of caution and say that these operational matters may be relevant to the court case so we’ll decline on answering that one.  

Ms Barrett: We’ve really tried to provide as much information as we can—  

Senator ROBERTS: And, as I said, it’s been comprehensive.  

Ms Barrett: in the statement, to be as helpful as we can. As I said at the outset, we understand that of course it’s of significant interest to the public, but we need to balance that with ensuring that there’s a fair trial.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got safety to consider as well. Okay, now I understand what operational decision means. Did you have a conversation or exchange emails with anyone within the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about where you intended to affect the arrest?  

Ms Barrett: Are you asking me specifically or the AFP?  

Senator ROBERTS: The AFP.  

Ms Barrett: Again, I’ll pass to Deputy Commissioner McCartney.  

Mr McCartney : In the division of responsibilities, the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions is to prosecute charges and offences. Once those charges have been affected by operational agencies, such as the AFP, or as OSI did in this case—they were aware of the location being in New South Wales and Sydney. In terms of being aware of the exact location at the airport, I will take that one on notice and come back to you.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my final question, Minister. The commissioner has clarified some misrepresentations in the media, which is appreciated. Perhaps you could clarify another comment in the media that so far your predecessor government, the Morrison government, and your government have spent, supposedly, $300 million or more on prosecuting these investigations. So far you’ve got two men charged, as I understand it, and no-one convicted.  

Ms Barrett: Sorry I missed that last bit.  

Senator ROBERTS: No-one has been convicted yet. I don’t think anyone’s gone to court yet, have they?  

Ms Barrett: There are two matters before court.  

Senator ROBERTS: Before the court, yes, but I don’t think they’ve actually started trying them. This is a question to the minister. Is this action to justify more funding?  

Senator Watt: Is what action to justify more funding?  

Senator ROBERTS: The arrest of Ben Roberts-Smith?  

Senator Watt: That’s a very big statement to make, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you to clarify this because the commissioner has done a very good job in clarifying media misrepresentation.  

Senator Watt: I’m not sure about you, Senator Roberts, but I and our government have full confidence in our police forces to make good decisions when they’re deciding who to charge and why. I’d be very concerned if you’re suggesting otherwise.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not suggesting the AFP.  

Senator Watt: We don’t interfere with the decisions of the AFP as to who they charge and for what. That is an independent decision, as it should be.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, you’ve answered my question. I’ll just say again, Commissioner, thank you for your summary—excellent. Thanks, CHAIR, for your indulgence.  

CHAIR: Happy to serve, Senator Roberts. 

/0 Comments/by

Veterans Face New $5,000 Care Restriction

,

These Estimates questions relate to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs’ proposed $5,000 aggregate cap on allied health services.

Our veterans and doctors are worried – and they have every right to be.

The government claims this cap won’t hurt complex-case veterans, yet they admit the system to apply for funding above the cap hasn’t even been designed yet.

Fix the system, don’t punish everyone! If there’s fraud, target the fraudsters. Do not penalise the vast majority of honest, caring doctors and vulnerable veterans.

Those who sacrificed for our country should never face cost-cutting measures disguised as ‘reforms.’ Our veterans deserve certainty, respect, and our support.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. I want to go over some changes to the annual monetary limit— some details that may not have been covered. I’ll do my best to try and avoid questions that were going to be asked but have since been covered. If I miss out, let me know. I’m also passing on a lot of complaints and questions from veterans as well as doctors. Doctors are appalled and resigned, yet, fundamentally, they all care. You have already confirmed that the cap is an aggregate cap across all allied health services, not per discipline. Is that correct?  

Mr Kefford: No, that’s not correct. It does not include optical, dental or hearing services.  

Senator ROBERTS: Apart from them. Physio, physical treatment, mental health—they’re all aggregate?  

Mr Brown: Open Arms counselling services are also not included.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does the minister accept that an aggregate cap would force complex-case veterans to ration treatment between conditions formally accepted by the Commonwealth?  

Mr Kefford: Again, no. We gave evidence earlier today about the ability, particularly in complex cases, for there to be additional thresholds. The point of having the $5,000 threshold is to ensure that treatment is effective, and there’s an undertaking in the announcement for there to be consultation on the basis on which that additional funding will be provided.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the TPI gold card holders with multiple accepted conditions be exempt from any aggregate cap, consistent with existing exemptions for physiotherapy and exercise physiology?  

Mr Brown: No. Exceptions to the cap will be considered on a basis of clinical need. Many of the cohort that you’re referring to would potentially meet that requirement, but that will be subject to a consultation process around the design with the veteran community and provider groups.  

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s not designed yet?  

Mr Brown: The process for veteran card holders to go above the $5,000 annual monetary limit where there is a clinical need has not been designed yet. This measure commences on 1 July 2027, and we’ve got that lead-in time to do that consultation work.  

Senator ROBERTS: What objective criteria will DVA use to determine when funding above $5,000 will be approved, and how will veterans be informed of their eligibility?  

Mr Kefford: The focus, as we’ve said, will be on clinical need and effectiveness of the treatment, and the announced consultation process, once it has been concluded and the arrangements have been confirmed, will be communicated to veterans so they can understand the operation of the new arrangements.  

Senator ROBERTS: How will they be communicated?  

Mr Kefford: In our usual mechanisms.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, that’s what bothers a lot of veterans.  

Mr Kefford: We use our Vetaffairs newspaper, our social media and other presences, as well as the formal publication of the outcomes of the consultation process, as we’ve done for other similar ones.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have a collection of microservice organisations, as well as the RSL, that you can send it to?  

Mr Kefford: Indeed. We would normally engage with the ex-service community as well—ex-service organisations.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you heard of W Edwards Deming?  

Mr Kefford: No, sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: He was famous, globally, as a management consultant; he died at the age of 95. He said that 95 per cent of problems are not with individuals but with the system. How have you approached the design of the new policy? My point is that you’ve got a problem. There’s some fraud going on—I accept that; wherever there’s money, there are tendencies for some fraud. But the majority of doctors and the majority of veterans are honest and caring people. Has there been any thought to, rather than punishing everyone or limiting everyone, putting a severe punishment on the few miscreants?  

Ms Frame: As we explained earlier this morning, the measure will benefit most veterans in terms of providing them with clearer, up-to-date insights on who they are seeing and where they are up to with their cap. They will have that on MyService, which is a facility they don’t have now. They will have the benefit of more providers. We anticipate there will be more providers availing themselves of the increased rates that are also part of the measure, and we have designed the consideration around $5,000. The policy objective of that threshold of $5,000 is to ensure the maximal effectiveness of the treatment that veterans are receiving. It provides a way by which we can assure the veteran that the providers who are delivering them services are accountable for genuine improvements in their condition and not just delivering services in perpetuity that aren’t subject to any checks and assurances that they are affecting real improvements in veteran wellbeing. 

Mr Brown: I reiterate the evidence I gave earlier today that, of those veteran cardholders who access allied health services with those veteran cards, the average amount of services they provide, based on historical data, is around $3½ thousand per annum, so the $5,000 cap is adequate to facilitate allied health services for the majority of veterans accessing those services through card arrangements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Averages can be really misleading and deceptive. They can hide things. I’m not accusing you of hiding things, but averages—that’s a fact. What percentage of—  

Senator McAllister: He has the median as well. There are a number of statistical indicators. You may enjoy this.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re partial indicators.  

Mr Brown: We have a number of high-end users that skew that average. The median is $1,900 without those high-end users skewing that average.  

Senator ROBERTS: What percentage of veterans go over $5,000 in a year?  

Mr Brown: It fluctuates, but it’s between eight and 12 per cent, so roughly one in 10 of the eligible population.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a sizeable number nonetheless. That skews. It distorts. Have you built systems— or are you still building systems—to take care of that 10 per cent’s needs?  

Mr Brown: That would be the process that we’ll build off the back of the consultation that will occur over the next 12 months to ensure that we’re meeting the clinical needs of those veteran cardholders who require an amount over the $5,000 threshold.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’ve found in my career is that humans are not afraid of change. People misleadingly say that humans are afraid of change. What they’re afraid of is uncertainty. Is there anything you can do to make things less uncertain for veterans who are worried?  

Ms Frame: I announced in my opening statement this morning that we will be doing this consultation. We have conveyed that. We will be consulting on the mechanism, but we have also put a section on our website in the last week that responds to miscommunications, what is coming to us about the veteran community and where they have fears about how the measure will be affected. As we said, it hasn’t started yet, but we are doing our best to proactively engage with that and put up-to-the-minute information that responds directly to where we see misinformation and misapprehension circulating in the veteran community to address that exact uncertainty and provide as much information as we are able to at this point in time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you consulting with any veterans to design the communications before you release the communications? This is not meant disrespectfully. It’s meant with complete respect. Your environment is different from the veterans’ environment. Your language is different. Are you using veterans to guide you in the messaging? That seems to be a big problem.  

Ms Frame: No, not directly with that communication as I understand it at the moment. It is based on direct feedback from veterans, so we’re looking at exactly what they are saying and using their own language and terminology in our responses as much as possible.  

Senator ROBERTS: So veterans will be required to apply for additional funding. What evidence will be required, and how long will approvals take? Is that still being designed?  

Mr Kefford: That’s the nub of the consultation, which will involve a process of both presentations from us and submissions from individuals as well as professional organisations. So that will be worked through, and it will be communicated once it’s been settled.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will there be regular updates and communications?  

Mr Kefford: Indeed.  

Senator ROBERTS: What appeal mechanisms will exist if DVA declines to fund clinically necessary care above the cap? That’s still part of the process being designed, I take it.  

Mr Brown: That will be considered during the design process, but it’s not going to be an administrative decision made under any primary legislation. We’ll consider that issue during consultation, but it’s unlikely—I don’t want to speculate too much—that it will be appealable through our normal administrative decision-making processes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any ideas on how it will be appealable?  

Mr Brown: No. I don’t want to speculate further about what the process might look like ahead of a consultation period.  

Mr Kefford: Mr Brown’s absolutely correct. I would say two things. First of all, the intention here, as the secretary has outlined, is to ensure that allied health is clinically appropriate and effective. And the purpose of having the process that we’re describing is to ensure that, particularly, those veterans who have more complex needs are properly cared for and receive the support and rehabilitation that they need.  

Senator ROBERTS: What assessment has the government made of the risk that a capped funding model will further reduce provider willingness to treat veterans, given existing concerns about low DVA fee schedules? I’ve had a number of doctors say this is insane.  

Mr Kefford: Part of the measure is, directly to that point, to actually increase allied health fees. One hundred and sixty-seven, is it, Luke?  

Mr Brown: It’s 169—$170 million in round numbers.  

Mr Kefford: And that’s intended to encourage more providers to provide services to veterans. That’s been welcomed by a number of bodies, and we tabled a letter from the physiotherapists association—that’s not the proper title—this morning.  

Mr Brown: For example, as part of that measure, for a face-to-face standard room consultation with a physiotherapist, our fee will increase from $75.10 to $110. Those fee increases apply across the board to allied health providers.  

Senator ROBERTS: How does the government reconcile the introduction of a monetary ceiling with the royal commission’s finding that barriers to healthcare access contribute to veteran suicide risk?  

Mr Kefford: A part of the measure is to, below that threshold, actually remove the requirement for the treatment cycles that currently exist and to provide that flexibility, recognising that the threshold’s been set with regard to what is normal usage, but then to have a process to ensure that necessary treatment is available and that treatment that’s provided is clinically appropriate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does the government accept that veterans with numerous accepted conditions will exhaust the cap more quickly than those with a single injury, despite both having conditions recognised as service caused?  

Mr Kefford: That would be the logical conclusion, and that’s why we’re having a process of—the $5,000 limit is a threshold at which point there can be further decisions about clinically necessary care that needs to be provided.  

Senator McAllister: I think it’s worth—just in response to your last three or four questions, Senator—putting the whole measure in context. The royal commission did say that the government should take steps to improve access to health care, including by raising the charging or the provisioning for procuring allied health services. This measure does that; it raises the fees. It also seeks to remove some of the administrative hurdles for veterans by removing the treatment cycle, which will remove some of the impediments to people procuring the services that they want for their own needs. And, as Ms Frame said, it also will allow us to invest in some digital systems that will let veterans see what services they’ve already used and what resources might be available to them. So the context for this is actually a broad measure to improve access to allied health across the sector.  

Senator ROBERTS: What safeguards exist to prevent the cap from disproportionately harming veterans with complex, chronic or degenerative conditions?  

Mr Brown: Part of the measure that’s been announced by the government is that, where there’s a clinical need to access allied health services above the $5,000 cap, that will be provided.  

Senator ROBERTS: What transitional provisions will be put in place to ensure veterans do not experience sudden loss of access to essential treatment when the cap begins in July 2027? This is a source of pretty severe mental health pressure. Is there a transitional arrangement?  

Mr Kefford: The detail of, particularly, the mechanism by which veterans will seek additional funding above that first threshold is the nub of the consultation process. I’m sure the concerns that you’re raising will be aired in that context. 

Senator ROBERTS: When will clear, written guidance be issued to veterans and providers explaining how the cap will operate in practice? Do you have a scheduled time or an approximate time?  

Mr Kefford: The undertaking is that the consultations will commence in August. We haven’t set a conclusion or detailed timeline for that yet, but certainly the intention would be to have arrangements clear and able to be communicated well in advance of 1 July.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we understand what you’re trying to do, but I don’t think the message has got out from the department, the DVA, as clearly as possible, because $5,000 is seen by many veterans as pitifully and ridiculously small. It’s an insult. How much of this is a cost-cutting exercise to get your government through the hoops with regard to the waste and hypocrisy that it’s shown—  

Senator McAllister: I indicated to you earlier—  

Senator ROBERTS: across all budget areas.  

Senator McAllister: that our goal is to ensure that veterans have access to the allied health treatment they need in a timely way, and to make sure that the services they’re being provided are clinically effective. One of the consequences of creating a system where very large quantities of services are procured from the private sector by individuals is that we see the emergence of some behaviours in that market that are not in the best interests of veterans. At the worst end of it, it looks like fraud: claiming for services that were never delivered. Stepping a few clicks back from that, sometimes it looks like overservicing: making a set of recommendations for which there is no clinical evidence and from which the individual doesn’t see a material benefit in their own health and wellbeing. We judge that, given what we know about the use of these services by veterans, most veterans are using well under that $5,000 limit. When we see veterans experiencing higher rates, we think it’s appropriate for there to be a threshold to evaluate whether what’s on offer to that person is genuinely going to assist them. We have every intention of ensuring people do get the healthcare services they need, and this reform is about a multipronged approach to make sure that’s true, both for the people whose needs are at lower levels of intensity and for the people whose needs are at the higher level.  

Senator ROBERTS: This government has developed a reputation for wasteful spending and loose spending, and people are concerned about that. It seems to me that there’s a lot of work going on, but the root causes are resignation among the veterans that nothing concrete has been done, and there’s so much fear. I think it’s a matter of not only what you just stipulated as your desire and what your targets are but how it’s being done—the process. Would you agree?  

Senator McAllister: I don’t agree with many of the things you said. Our government in each and every budget have found savings so that we can prioritise the things that we care about and that we know the community cares about. One of those areas of investment has in fact been in DVA, because we came to government knowing that it was significantly underprovisioned and that the lack of staff, in particular, in this organisation had led to unconscionable delays in people being able to access the services that they deserve as veterans. We’ve set about addressing that, and there’s a lot to be proud of in the work that’s been done by the many people who work in this department and the collaborative way that the veterans community has engaged in that work to make sure that we do improve the service level that’s available.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

/0 Comments/by

The Systemic Failure Killing Our Soldiers

,

Beyond simple funding gaps, the medical, psychiatric, and legal challenges confronting veterans reflect deep-seated systemic failures.

The government and “top brass” of Defence are failing to manage and “mend” those who have served.

Standards are ignored. The MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crash is a primary example where warnings were reportedly ignored, leading to fatalities.

There is a disconnect between the “top brass” and rank-and-file members. The government overriding the findings of the Senate inquiry into Defence honours and awards is evidence that the concerns of service members are being ignored.

The veteran community is feeling “lost and broken,” struggling with loneliness, anger, and vulnerability. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide provides a backdrop to this desperation.

The “shambles” within the ADF leadership threatens the security of all 27 million Australians. By betraying the “heart” of the ADF, the effectiveness of the entire force is compromised.

Reform is needed and includes: ➡️ Enforcing honesty and “fair dinkum” treatment of veterans. ➡️ Holding senior ADF personnel, government ministers, and bureaucrats accountable for their decisions. ➡️ Restoring the standards and values that protect the lives of service members.

These failings are killing people.

Senior levels of the Australian Defence Force must be held accountable.

And until this is addressed, this issue will never be fixed.

Transcript

I support Senator Lambie’s motion and thank her for it. This is urgent. This is a crisis. This is growing. I want to talk more broadly about how to properly fix the system, and I commend Senator Lambie and the others who’ve talked about the system. The government is not managing vets, and this has led me to support Senator Lambie. The situation is critical. It needs action, because the neglect is piling issues on issues on issues for ADF members and veterans, and for Australia. This reflects on Australia. The Romans said, ‘We send them, we bend them, but we don’t mend them!’ That could be said of the ADF. Men and women are getting desperate. They’re feeling pain, hurt, loneliness, anger, desperation and vulnerability. They’re feeling lost and broken. They’re very concerned about their mates. We have people coming to us almost daily with legal problems caused by Defence, with medical problems or with psychiatric health problems. These are serious issues. They simply need honesty, mateship, a fair go and being fair dinkum.  

These men and women have served our nation here and overseas. They deserve our support. What will it take? The government hasn’t cared. Although I commend Senator Chisholm for what he just read out, it needs to go far deeper. The government has made this an urgent issue. The findings of the recent Senate inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system were clear. The government came out and just did what the top brass wanted it to do— overrode the whole lot. It listened to people and then ignored them.  

There were the Taipan deaths. After our warnings, after Senator Shoebridge’s warnings, after the previous crash— in which, fortunately, no-one died—the chopper was faulty. The chopper model was faulty. The heads-up display was faulty. ADF top brass ignored the standards and now they’re trying to hide it. I once listened to a very experienced senior ADF member who had top service in Vietnam and had risen to a very senior rank. He said that 70 per cent of the deaths of Australian soldiers in Vietnam were due to breaches of standards, which shows that Defence measures breaches of standards. Now, here we are with the Taipan chopper fatality, ignoring standards. The ADF senior brass is ignoring standards.  

We’ve had a royal commission into veteran suicide. We’ve got the ABC, funded by taxpayers, defaming Heston Russell, who did a marvellous job in Afghanistan. When they were found guilty of defaming him, there was no apology. This man serves and then is targeted at home. Defence equipment purchases are hopeless, and people know it. What I’m saying is that this is systemic. It’s not just about dollars, Senator Chisholm—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President Hodgins-May. It’s about accountability at the senior levels of the Australian Defence Force. Until that’s fixed, this will never be fixed.  

This shambles is killing people. Vets simply want to be heard. They want their issues addressed, and they want senior ADF responsibilities to be fulfilled. There are 27 million Australians whose security depends on senior ADF personnel. That security is at risk because the key to our Australian Defence Force—the heart, the mateship, the truth—is being attacked and betrayed. Costs are going up; results are coming down. This needs to incorporate a systems approach including senior ADF personnel, who set the tone, and including government ministers and bureaucrats. It’s an enormous problem, with the security of 27 million Australians at risk. 

/by

Defending Those Who Defend Us

,

In November, the government officially admitted defeat. The “horrific” Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal) Bill has been discharged from the Senate Notice Paper – a win for every member of our Army, Navy and Air Force.

This all started with a One Nation motion to inquire into the honours and awards system. Our veterans stood up, presented the facts and spoke with such strength that the “top brass” could no longer turn a deaf ear. It is a credit to our country that those who defended us were willing to stand up once again to protect the morale and mateship of our ADF.

One Nation will always hold the senior brass accountable. We will not let them kill the spirit of our forces or compromise Australia’s security.

To our veterans and currently serving members: You won. We are proud of you and we will always put Australia first.

Transcript

Our veterans won. Our Australian Defence Force members won—people in the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. The government admits defeat on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill, which has been discharged from the Senate Notice Paper. That’s what this motion’s about. This all started with a One Nation motion that I moved in the Senate to inquire into the honours and awards system. 

We supported the veterans who spoke so strongly and so well at the inquiry. They’re a credit to our country not only for their service but for the way they stood up and explained their case. They earned my admiration yet again. They earned my respect yet again. They based their submissions and their witness statements on data. They gave us hard, concrete examples. Then the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal spoke in the inquiry. They spoke clearly, strongly and with strong evidence. Then Defence ignored it, and the government ignored it. You turned a deaf ear to it. I want to thank the veterans again for their service and for standing up. I bet you never thought you’d have to stand up in your own country that you defended, but that’s what you’ve done. Thank you so much for that. 

With our political support, the veterans and the current serving members won. The veterans won, and I thank the Senate for that. I thank all the members of the Senate who backed us on this from the start. We are with you, veterans and current ADF members. We will continue to hold the Defence senior brass accountable and to stop the Defence senior brass from killing morale and killing the key to our defence forces that is our mateship. The Defence top brass and the government are killing our defence strength. 

Australia’s security is One Nation’s top priority. This amendment bill has to be discharged to maintain the morale of our gallant armed forces. That means supporting our veterans and currently serving Australian soldiers in all the defence forces. We will continue to support you. 

One Nation supports this motion to discharge this horrific bill from the Notice Paper. Veterans have won and currently enlisted Australian Defence Force members have won. I want to make it very clear: One Nation is proud to serve our veterans and Australian Defence Force members. One Nation will continue to put Australia first. 

/by

Protecting the Institution, or Protecting our Troops?

,

During the February Senate Estimates, I asked questions of the ADF about the tragic case of LAC Andrew Armfield.

From what I’ve been told, the facts are damning:

Mandatory suicide management policies were ignored after his first attempt.

Evidence suggests FOI redactions were used to smear Andrew’s brother, a whistleblower, to protect the ADF’s reputation.

Senior leadership was briefed on “media risk” while claiming elsewhere they were unaware of the situation.

It’s the same old story: The top brass is more worried about bad PR than the lives of our sailors, soldiers, and aviators.

Mateship and trust are strategic assets, yet you can’t have either without the TRUTH.

The ADF leadership has taken my questions “on notice.” I’ll be holding them to it.

Our service members deserve justice, not excuses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve heard today that people are important, and that’s reassuring. My understanding is that in the ADF mateship and trust are of strategic importance. They’re strategically significant. Going to safety and trust, I’d like to get to questions that relate to the way that the ADF has mismanaged the suicide of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield and failed to provide him with the support he needed after his first suicide attempt in June 2011. Are you aware that the royal commission transcripts dated 6 March 2024 and a ministerial background brief from the Deputy Chief of Navy, Commodore Ray Leggett, to Minister Matt Keogh in October 2022, copied to Vice Chief of Defence Force David Johnson and Chief of Defence Force Angus Campbell, warned of negative media risk if Mr Armfield’s story became public?  

Adm. Johnston: Of course it is very difficult for us to talk about the individual circumstances. As we have explained to you before, we can talk around the support that we are doing to improve suicide awareness, our proactive response to reducing the prevalence of it in the force. Mr Armfield’s circumstances were very much a part of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. For officials to talk on the particular nature of his circumstances, there is very limited that we can say without his authority to do so. If it is helpful for you to have officials come forward and just explain how we are responding to the types of circumstances that Mr Armfield experienced and what we are doing to improve our response to it, I would be very happy to do so. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll point out that Mr John Armfield has been involved in developing these questions. We got the data from him. He’s happy for us to talk about it.  

Adm. Johnston: That might be true of what he’s provided to you, but that’s not an authority that we have from him.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask again: are you aware that you were copied as Vice Chief of Defence Force on the royal commission transcripts?  

Adm. Johnston: I am aware of Mr Armfield’s transcripts, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Given that ministerial brief, do you accept that sworn royal commission evidence by then Vice Chief of Defence Force, yourself, claiming you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation was incorrect as you had been copied in?  

Adm. Johnston: Sorry? I’m just not clear on your question about which part you mean was incorrect.  

Senator ROBERTS: The ministerial brief to Minister Matt Keogh in October 2022. Given that brief, which you said you got, do you accept that sworn royal commission evidence by yourself claiming that you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation?  

Adm. Johnston: My comment to you was that I’m aware of the transcript of Mr Armfield’s evidence after the royal commission had occurred. I would have to go back to my own testimony of the evidence to be able to answer that question for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s claimed that you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation, but you were aware.  

Adm. Johnston: Mr Armfield appears directly prior to me appearing as a witness. I heard his evidence. I would have to check the circumstances of that question. I heard the evidence that Mr Armfield gave, because he appeared immediately prior to me on the morning that I appeared at the royal commission. If you could allow me to go back and clarify the question you’re asking to make sure I get the accurate response to it?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fair enough. At the time of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield’s first suicide attempt in June 2011, was DIGPRS 1626 a mandatory policy requiring a risk management team? Is it accepted that no risk management team and no crisis management plan were ever established by Dr Suresh Babu or Wing Commander Peter Davies?  

Adm. Johnston: You’re asking me particulars of details of that set of circumstances. We would take them on notice and do our best to answer them for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your desire for accuracy. Do you accept that, by failing to comply with that mandatory policy, Defence removed structured oversight of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield’s care and therefore failed to discharge its duty of care regardless of treatment occurring in a civilian hospital?  

Adm. Johnston: Again, I’m not in the position to answer the detail. I just don’t have sufficient knowledge of it. I would look at it, but I would restate the importance and the amount of work that we have done to address suicide within the Defence Force and that with veterans after. There are considerable initiatives, and we have learnt from each one of these tragic circumstances about how we need to change our policies, the awareness of our people and the proactive environment that we can provide in order to minimise the circumstances of suicide occurring. That was a tragic set of circumstances. We are doing our best to learn from them and to change the environment to prevent suicide occurring within the force.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a nice broad fluffy statement, and it’s honourable, but I’d like a specific answer to that question, if you could give it to me. I accept that you’re putting yourself in a difficult position if you just answer off the cuff, so we’d appreciate the answer on notice.  

Adm. Johnston: I’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did Defence redact freedom of information material under sections 47E and 47F relating to statements by Flight Lieutenant Carlisle Miles, Commodore Fiona Southwood and Colonel Matthew Freeman when an FOI review later revealed those redactions concealed false and subjective statements portraying Petty Officer Armfield—that’s the deceased’s brother, and he’s also the complainant—as dishonest or mentally unstable? Some of those statements were emailed 11 times to 14 commissioned officers, thereby damaging his professional reputation and shaping a false narrative to protect Defence.  

Adm. Johnston: I’m sorry. I don’t have that knowledge, but we will take it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Why did the Inspector-General of the ADF in his assessment report of 2022 identify that Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Freeman conducted a fact-finding investigation without the required investigator qualification, acted with bias and exceeded his terms of reference by commenting on Mr Armfield’s mental health? That’s the brother.  

Adm. Johnston: Sorry? What is the question within what you’ve just presented?  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did the Inspector-General of the ADF in his assessment report of 2022 identify that Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Freeman conducted a fact-finding investigation without the required investigator qualification, acted with bias and exceeded his terms of reference by commenting on Mr Armfield’s mental health? That’s Petty Officer Armfield.  

Adm. Johnston: If your question is why did the Inspector-General of the ADF come to that conclusion, that is best, of course, presented to the inspector-general rather than to the department.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know if what he said was true and you’re aware of it?  

Adm. Johnston: I would have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: What authority or qualification did Commodore Bannister rely upon to decide that Mr Armfield’s allegations of criminal conduct, supported by ADF legal advice and reviewed by senior external lawyers, were not referred to police or prosecutors?  

Adm. Johnston: Again, I will take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Petty Officer Armfield reported alleged breaches of Commonwealth law on the advice of an ADF lawyer to Commodore Fiona Southwood, Warrant Officer Navy Andrew Bertoncin, Captain Anne Andrews, Chief of Navy Mark Hammond, IGADF and the Defence Force Ombudsman. All were provided the evidence. Process and policy was followed. If each officer deflected or claimed it was not their remit, who exactly does an enlisted sailor, soldier or air crew report allegations of criminal conduct to within the ADF?  

Adm. Johnston: That is one of the areas where we have extensively sought to enhance the options that are available to individuals of how they report. Some of them, as you were referring to, would be up through their leadership chain. We have ensured there are independent options that are outside of an individual’s unit or command structure so that in those circumstances where they feel more comfortable reporting externally they have multiple options, whether it is to military police or the inspector-general of the ADF. We now have a centralised reporting mechanism where reporting can be made that is separate to the command chains. We have ensured there are multiple pathways available to people when either they believe that reporting that they may have made to their leadership is not being acted on or where they are uncomfortable with reporting in that environment and they wish to be able to report externally to it.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’m hearing—correct me if I’m wrong—is that mandatory defence suicide management policy was not followed, that oversight failed and you’ve made changes since. Serious concerns raised by Petty Officer John Armfield, the deceased’s brother, were known to senior Defence leadership and possibly yourself while being denied under oath elsewhere; is that correct?  

Adm. Johnston: That’s not what I said, with respect.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I wasn’t saying what you said—what I’ve heard, what I’ve interpreted.  

Adm. Johnston: No, I didn’t comment on the individual circumstances of the case but did explain what we had done. If your question is around that set of circumstances, I will need to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could take it on notice, please. I accept your correction there. We’ve heard that reputationally damaging material was withheld under freedom of information, that flawed and unqualified investigations occurred and that allegations of possible criminal conduct were not referred despite legal advice; is that correct?  

Adm. Johnston: Again, I do not have that detail. I would have to come back to you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Notably, the only person referred to law enforcement in this matter was the whistleblower himself, who was acting on the advice of an ADF lawyer, and none of the officers whose conduct is now in question. Could you confirm or correct that, please?  

Adm. Johnston: I would have to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t see this as support for a whistleblower. It’s avoidance. It goes to the heart of institutional integrity and accountability. I look forward to your answers to questions on notice, because the public deserve the truth. Your officers and your enlisted people deserve the truth—Army, Navy, Air Force—and they deserve justice. Anything less confirms that protecting the institution still matters more than protecting those who serve it. That’s what I’ve seen, being blunt, for the last few years in Senate estimates. The senior brass of the ADF is not standing up and providing leadership. 

Adm. Johnston: I hope you have seen significant evidence that, as we have already canvassed this morning, people are critical to our capability, and that the work we are doing through implementing the royal commission recommendations within Defence is a significant priority for us. The structure of support and the environment and culture that we are seeking to build, both within the Defence Force and more broadly across Defence, is highly supportive of our people. There are circumstances—and the royal commission was clear—where we have let people down, and we have acknowledged that. We have put significant effort and priority around doing everything that we can to change those circumstances.  

Senator ROBERTS: I look at the report from the inquiry into honours and awards. There was a clear recommendation that Defence put in place a more objective process, and that was nixed by the government. I still don’t see that desire for accountability and truth at the top of the Australian Defence Force.  

/by

Ongoing Investigation Into Taipan Helicopter Tragedy

,

During Estimates in October, I asked Comcare about its investigation into the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crash in the Whitsundays — a tragedy that claimed four lives. I wanted clarity on the scope and depth of their work.

Comcare confirmed the investigation is still open, with active lines of inquiry. They explained that a specialised investigation team was assigned, supported by subject matter experts for technical aspects. I asked about the range of expertise and the number of interviews conducted and agreed to provide those details on notice.

The investigation focused on obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act. Comcare gathered evidence from witnesses, documents, and technical specialists. I referred to Senate-ordered documents showing potential Category 1 and Category 2 offences and asked what those mean. Their legal officer explained that Category 1 involves reckless breaches of safety duties while Category 2 involves breaches without recklessness.

I noted Defence’s reputation for strict procedures and asked if they violated their own standards. Comcare said that wasn’t the primary focus, though they may have considered it as part of broader safety controls.

Finally, I asked if they were disappointed the prosecutor decided not to lay charges despite evidence of serious breaches. Mr Duke admitted he was personally disappointed but said Comcare accepted the decision and remains focused on achieving safety outcomes. He stressed the investigation was thorough and comprehensive, and they were satisfied they did everything within their powers to prepare the brief.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

/by

Air Force vs. Civil Careers

,

I questioned the Defence Department about some serious allegations regarding a “protection racket” between the Air Force and major airlines like Qantas and Virgin.

I’ve seen internal emails suggesting the Air Force has been whispering in the ears of HR departments to delay start dates for pilots who are trying to transition to civilian careers.

It’s absolutely unacceptable to place invisible barriers in front of veterans who have served their country and just want to provide for their families.

While the Air Marshal denied any wrongdoing and insisted retention rates are “healthy,” I’ve pushed for a lot more detail. They’ve taken my questions on notice, so I’m currently waiting on the answers.

We need full transparency on these backroom deals to ensure our pilots aren’t being held captive by their own employer.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ll move on to Qantas’s and Virgin’s interference. There are significant allegations that the Air Force is deliberately colluding with Virgin and Qantas to try and force, or pressure, those airlines to delay starting dates for former Air Force pilots, to keep them locked in a job in the Air Force that they don’t want to be in anymore. After serving our country, pilots shouldn’t be subjected to invisible barriers that stop them from getting a job in the civilian world. In late 2017, the director of personnel for the Air Force opened a line with Qantas ‘to establish a working relationship at the HR recruitment level’ and to discuss ‘recruitment, retention and leave without pay’. I’ve got an excerpt from a freedom-of-information request. It’s an email from Mitchell Beck, squadron leader air operations 1, director of personnel for the Air Force. It was sent on 22 January 2018, and the subject is ‘RAAF Virgin meeting 18 January 2018’. In that it is confirmed: ‘We, the Air Force, discuss methods of delayed start dates for RAAF pilots, such as when the member is leaving from a critical job. Virgin may be receptive to a delayed start of six to 12 months.’ That is the Air Force seeking to coerce airlines into arbitrarily delaying someone starting a new job for up to a year because the Air Force wants to keep the pilot in a job they didn’t want to be in. How can you justify taking away service members’ ability to earn a living and feed their family in the civilian workforce for an entire year?  

Senator McAllister: Chair, I think officials will be in a position to provide some advice to the senator about the broad policy position. It is very difficult for officials to respond to the quotes that have been provided by Senator Roberts without seeing them or understanding their provenance. I wonder if committee members might consider providing copies of materials they rely on to form questions, because it is challenging for officials to respond if they don’t have them in front of them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, it boils down to—  

CHAIR: Do you have a copy for the witnesses?  

Senator ROBERTS: I haven’t got it with me.  

CHAIR: I’m also mindful of time. Have you got a few more questions on this issue?  

Senator ROBERTS: Very short. Is the Air Force working with Qantas and Virgin to delay the transition out of the Air Force for their pilots?  

Air Marshal Chappell: We’re not working with airlines to delay anyone’s careers. I would have to understand the emails you’re referring to from 2018 in significantly more detail in order to give you an answer, given all of the factors that are involved in career management, initial obligations of air crew and many others. Can I take it on notice and, if possible, understand or get copies of the emails you’re referring to so I can best respond to your questions?  

Senator ROBERTS: I will undertake to get the FOI quotes. If you can take it on notice, I would like to know the formal and informal arrangements between the Air Force and Qantas or Virgin.  

Air Marshal Chappell: Thanks, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Also can you table any MOUs, emails, minutes and briefings in relation to these meetings from the past three years.  

Adm. Johnston: We’ll take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Were any names or any lists of serving or separating pilots shared with the airlines?  

Air Marshal Chappell: I will take the package on notice.  

Adm. Johnston: We just don’t have that information.  

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. You could take on notice under what privacy authority those names were given, and whether any contact influenced hiring decisions or start dates.  

Air Marshal Chappell: I will take the questions on notice without necessarily accepting any of the assertions in your questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Fine. How many cases by year since 2017 involved Air Force contacting an airline about a pilot’s application, start date or employment status, and what were the outcomes? If you could take that on notice.  

Air Marshal Chappell: I will take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: What conflict-of-interest and post-separation controls apply to personnel staff liaising with airlines? You can take that on notice. Does Defence accept that such liaison without transparent policy and consent risks a perception of covert influence over civilian hiring to manage retention? Why did you do it? It seems to be a bandaid situation.  

Adm. Johnston: We will take all of those on notice. We need to get the details of what you have in front of you to make sure we answer them reasonably.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re being hit with excessive retirements from the Australian defence forces across the board. We know that. We are wondering if this is just a bandaid solution.  

Adm. Johnston: Our separation rates are well below average, rather than elevated, at the moment.  

Air Marshal Chappell: Over the last 12 months to the end of June, the financial year, Air Force grew by 824 personnel.  

Senator ROBERTS: I am pleased to hear that at last.  

Air Marshal Chappell: The evidence a little earlier would have illuminated the broader Defence story, which is very similar. Air Force is now above 16,000 personnel. We are continuing to grow, and separation rates are continuing to fall and stabilise at very healthy levels.  

Senator ROBERTS: Please provide on notice a full briefing in relation to the nature of the relationship between the personnel division and the airlines, how this relates to separating pilots, and under what authority Air Force is seeking—if you are seeking—to interfere with the post-separation employment of pilots.  

Air Marshal Chappell: I will take those on notice without accepting any of your assertions.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I said. None of this should be happening. In the wake of the royal commission, I think you should be stopping any conversations with the airlines that interfere with employment of pilots who separate. I would like you to comment on that.  

Senator McAllister: That’s not really a question, Senator. I think it commences with the assertion that something is happening. Officials have, a few times now, asked you for the opportunity to consider the materials you are relying upon before providing a response.  

Senator ROBERTS: And I said I would get it.  

CHAIR: That’s been taken on notice. Thank you very much

/by

A Betrayal of the Uniform

,

This is our last chance to act before we stand at cenotaphs across the country, yet the government seems content to push a bill that belongs in the dustbin.

I’ve watched the inquiries. I’ve heard the testimony. I’ve felt the genuine pain and shock from our veterans and those currently serving. They feel betrayed. Defence morale is absolutely shot to bits right now, and a big part of that is a government that gives the “top brass” carte blanche while ignoring the men and women on the ground.

The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal deserves better, and our soldiers certainly deserve better.

The bureaucratic games must stop! Start showing respect to those who wear the uniform.

P.S. Finally clearing up speech videos from late last year. While the date may have passed, the message is still relevant today.

— Senate Speech | November 2025

Trancript

Senator ROBERTS: I support Senator Pocock’s motion to suspend standing orders because it is urgent and it’s serious. I watched the inquiry. I felt the pain from veterans, from the serving men and women and from the DHAAT—the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. The veterans are shocked at what is going on. After serving the country, they’re shocked, they’re in pain and they’re in anguish. It’s the same with the enlisted men and women right now. It’s the same with the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. As Senator McKenzie pointed out, we have Remembrance Day coming up in five days. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, please refer your remarks to the suspension. 

Senator ROBERTS: We have five days. This is the last sitting day before Remembrance Day. That’s why it has to be done today. That’s why it’s urgent. There are two more reasons. One is that Defence morale is shot to bits over this issue and over many other issues, because the government is just listening to, and giving carte blanche to, the Defence top brass. My final point is that the minister and the government need to be saved from themselves. This is a stupid bill that’s coming up. It needs to be condemned and consigned to the dustbin. 

/3 Comments/by

Mandates Must Go for Defence Service

,

I questioned the Department of Defence regarding their ongoing COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Other major institutions, like the Federal Police, have dropped these requirements, acknowledging that the evidence on safety and efficacy has shifted significantly.

While the Surgeon General tried to frame these injections as “recommended” not “mandatory” for general staff, the reality is that vaccine mandates are still hanging over the heads of our defence members.I don’t care where a soldier is stationed in the world; if a treatment isn’t proven safe or effective, our defence personnel shouldn’t be forced to take it just to keep their jobs.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’d like to move to vaccine mandates. The Australian Federal Police and other major Commonwealth institutions have removed their mandates for COVID-19 injections on the basis that resulting major health problems from the injections contrasted with very few benefits from the injections, which evidence now shows are neither safe nor effective. Does the Department of Defence still mandate COVID-19 vaccination for employees?  

Adm. Johnston: Senator Roberts, the Surgeon General will come to the table to talk through our vaccine approach. While the Surgeon General is getting to her notes, Senator Roberts, as you would appreciate, the employment basis for the Australian Federal Police is largely domestic and delivered in a very different health environment to that which the ADF often finds itself, particularly when we are overseas or operating in very remote or austere occasions. So the circumstances of what law enforcement agencies might do or those agencies based domestically in Australia might do are not equivalent to the employment circumstances our people are often in.  

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that, Admiral Johnston. As I said in the last phrase of my concluding sentence, these are injections ‘which evidence now shows are neither safe nor effective’. I don’t care where they are on the planet. They’re neither safe or effective, and that’s now accepted.  

Rear Adm. Bennett: There are two aspects with respect to vaccinations, and I think your question is specifically around the COVID vaccine?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Do you still mandate COVID-19 vaccination for employees?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: Defence routinely vaccinates our personnel both on entry and annually for certain vaccines, and then there are also operational requirements for vaccination that might be specified on an operational health support order. With respect to the COVID vaccine, on entry we follow the national advice, from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, around recommendations for vaccines. Defence’s approach has changed over time as those recommendations have changed. The COVID vaccine is safe and effective, but the need for vaccination has changed as the virus has changed, as the prevalence of the virus in our community has changed and as the population’s immunity has changed as they’ve either had COVID or received vaccines. We follow the current recommendations, which I could describe: primary course is still recommended, but an annual booster is recommended for certain populations at risk or for people who, on discussion with their own treating clinician, would like to protect themselves from the virus that year.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does that mean it’s voluntary?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: It is recommended, but it’s not mandatory. That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve ended the mandates  

Rear Adm. Bennett: There are two aspects, as I said: on entry and routinely. On operations, there has been an order for vaccination because, as you can appreciate, when personnel go on deployment they are often living together in close quarters and there are different viruses circulating depending on where an operation occurs. The risks of people becoming unwell are much greater, both for themselves and for their mates. But, having said that, with the shift in the virus, Joint Health Command, my team, is consulting with the service chiefs to consider how they feel about the removal of that mandate and about looking at operations on a case-by-case basis—so, should there be a risk, considering what vaccinations may be warranted then. That work’s currently underway.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess the risks? Whose medical advice do you take?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: ATAGI’s—the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. We follow their advice on all vaccinations and then consider our own needs for vaccination.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you ever go against ATAGI?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: No—well, it depends on what you mean ‘against’. We may go beyond. ATAGI don’t just look at safety and efficacy; they look at the cost to the system. For those vaccines that are recommended, for instance, on the National Immunisation Program, we may provide more routinely in Defence for our personnel because, again, of those operational and other aspects.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that there are significant risks to healthy young people and that many other Commonwealth entities, including the Australian Federal Police, have now revoked their vaccine mandates?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: Nearly all states and territories and organisations have revoked mandates. That’s not all on safety; it’s on need as well. All vaccines do have an adverse-effect profile, and part of vaccination is the clinician understanding that profile and informing each individual, case by case, of what that is. The balance of benefits versus risk is considered always in vaccination. As far as COVID goes, the recommendations provided are that, on balance, the benefits of vaccinating people at risk and others are considered to outweigh what is a small incidence of adverse side effects. 

/2 Comments/by